Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Emailens MCP

Emailens MCP

by emailens
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Wait for Sandbox Email

sandbox_wait_for_email
Read-only

Polls the sandbox for a matching incoming test email, then extracts 4-8 digit OTP codes and action links for zero-regex assertions.

Instructions

Poll and wait for a matching incoming test email in the sandbox. Automatically extracts 4-8 digit OTP codes and action links for zero-regex test assertions. Requires EMAILENS_API_KEY.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sandbox_wait_for_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
senderNoSubstring match for sender address (case-insensitive)
inboxIdNoOptional inbox ID filter
subjectNoSubstring match for email subject (case-insensitive)
timeoutSecondsNoMax seconds to wait (default: 30, max: 60)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Addedv0.10.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld, and non-idempotent, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: it polls (hence non-idempotent), requires EMAILENS_API_KEY, and post-processes results by auto-extracting 4-8 digit OTP codes and action links. It doesn't say what happens on timeout, which is the main missing behavioral detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the value-add (OTP/link extraction), then the prerequisite. No redundant restatement of the title or the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what the tool returns (extracted OTP codes and action links for zero-regex assertions). The gap is timeout behavior: an agent can't tell whether a timeout raises an error or returns an empty/non-matching result, which matters for a blocking poll with a 60s cap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions for sender, inboxId, subject, and timeoutSeconds, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only adds the word 'matching' and does not explain match semantics beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource ('poll and wait for a matching incoming test email in the sandbox') plus a second stated capability (OTP/action-link extraction). It's clearly distinct from lookup-style siblings like sandbox_get_message, but it never names an alternative, so differentiation is by inference rather than explicit routing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The polling-then-assert scenario is implied, and the EMAILENS_API_KEY prerequisite is stated, which is genuinely useful. But there is no explicit 'use this when X, use sandbox_get_message/sandbox_list_messages when Y' guidance, leaving the agent to infer when waiting is preferable to an immediate fetch.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools